On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said she noted comments from former President Donald Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance about ending the war in Ukraine but said Moscow needed to be “realistic” about the prospect.
“We saw the statements — Trump said he would resolve the conflict within 24 hours, then Vance said that China is a bigger problem for the United States than the Russia-Ukraine conflict,” she said, according to Reuters.
“It’s necessary to separate pre-election rhetoric from statements by government officials vested with the appropriate powers. If we talk about whether it’s possible to resolve the conflict, let’s be realistic,” she added.
Zakharova pointed out that during the previous Trump administration, the president and some of his advisors made statements about bringing peace to the Middle East. “They prepared for the ‘deal of the century’ for quite a long time, but it did not end in anything, and under Biden, on the contrary, a colossal historical tragedy happened,” she said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has also noted Trump’s comments about ending the war in Ukraine and said he took them “seriously” but said he’s not familiar with any concrete proposals put forward by the former president.
In an interview with The New York Times last month, Vance outlined some ideas for a potential peace plan. “What I would like to do … is you freeze the territorial lines somewhere close to where they are right now. That’s number one. Number two is you guarantee both Kyiv’s independence but also its neutrality. It’s the fundamental thing the Russians have asked from the beginning,” he said. “And then three, there’s going to have to be some American security assistance over the long term. I think those three things are certainly achievable, yes.”
Vance wants the US to wind down its support for Ukraine so it could focus more on building up in the Asia Pacific and arming Taiwan. “The thing that we can control now is making it costly for [China] to invade Taiwan, and we’re not doing that because we’re sending all the damn weapons to Ukraine and not Taiwan,” he told the Times.
Once again, Russia's statements seem entirely reasonable and transparent. Trump is not the President. It is easy and cost-free for him, or his running mate, to promise this, that, or the other. If and when he is the President, and if he has something worthwhile to offer, Russia will consider it. Also relevant is Trump's history of purporting to be a big wheeler-dealer ("deal of the century") without necessarily following through.
He nails it, in typical articulate Lavrov fashion:
Lavrov's Bold Speech at the UN Causes Shockwaves Globally
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C60vswMHd64
'Bout halfway through. The man has laid out what everyone there should know, but will never acknowledge as long as Uncle Sam is looking over their shoulders while Uncle Bibi is looking over Uncle Sam's shoulders, …
Stuff most here know by heart. Lavrov, IMO, remains the premier foreign minister around. No one else comes close.
… only to add that the structural momentum of the Deep State with its 30 yr ideological investment in "the project for a new American century" is almost impossible to stop or even deflect from anything but minor tactical objectives … like Afghanistan, but Not Russia. Only Putin, or God in the 'grace' of a severe global economic depression, can save us now.
When Russia is more realistic about a Trump rhetoric, that should tell you how hopelessly delusional American voters are to believe the same rhetoric.
No, Vance is a good pick. Y’all need to look into him. Libertarians here are on drugs, hopelessly lost in some alternate dimension.
However, the leftists and Democrats here should like Vance.
My early impression here is best summed up by Kevin D. Williamson at The Dispatch:
“[H]e is so transparently a man who will say whatever his betters require him to say to get what he wants from them. Telling people with money and power what they want to hear is the only consistent throughline in his career, from Hillbilly Elegy to the present day. Once an appendage of Peter Thiel’s, now he is an appendage of Donald Trump’s after a long and bitter apprenticeship of sycophancy. … Vance has every indicator that he is capable of being a man who profoundly doesn’t matter. It is a kind of skill. Vance is whomever Trump needs him to be — the perfect would-be vice president …”
But I could be wrong. I need to re-read his book. It’s been a few years. Watched the film version the other night.
You must be a Warmonger scum with zero shame.
In your imagination, perhaps.
In the real world, I oppose all wars (and all of the regimes participating in said wars).
I like Vance’s praise of breaking up monopolies. He praised Biden (Lina Khan) for it.
However, I’m not all knowing.
Sorta reminds me of the wise words of that famous Texan from Dallas, J.R. Ewing:
“Once you give up your integrity, the rest is a piece of cake.”
"Libertarians here are on drugs, hopelessly lost in some alternate dimension."
What?
Vance supports working Americans with policies libertarians reject. Example: Breaking up monopolies.
Libertarians say it’s bad, because they’re on drugs.
Separately, Vance wants to protect trade, other policies. It’s not so much that he’s right. It’s that he’s focused on helping working Americans without bothering with an ideology.
Either Vance supports working Americans, OR he supports policies libertarians reject. Pick one.
If Vance wants to break up monopolies, then he wants less money from donors, such as monopolies.
Well, that’s populism. He and Trump are once again running against the elite, part of the elite anyway.
"Libertarians say it’s bad, because they’re on drugs."
Why do you keep saying that? I wouldn't imagine Libertarians, in general, are on drugs any more than any other political party.
There’s probably some variation, but truth often surprises. It could be libertarians consume fewer/smaller quantities of drugs.
Vance cannot do any of the these you listed without being the president…! Until then it's Trump status quo…!
In fairness, I AM on a lot of drugs.
Metformin, Glipizide, Ozempic (off that but about to go on a different semaglutide) for diabetes.
Lisonopril and Amlodipine for high blood pressure.
Gabapentin for neuropathic pain.
Rosuvastatin for cholesterol.
And that's just the prescription drugs. I also use several supplements, and a nightly THC/CBN gummy for better sleep.
I also use LSD occasionally, when I can find it (which isn't often).
And yet I'm still a thousand times as sane as Luchorpan when it comes to economic and political issues.
Be careful with the metformin. I am not diabetic, but have a friend who is. I don't think it is good for you.
Opinions vary on metformin, but based on my reading, if I didn't have diabetes I'd still take it even if I had to buy it on the black market. There's some evidence that it has anti-aging, anti-cancer, and anti-Alzheimer's properties. And Alzheimer's is something I've been kind of obsessively worried about since my early 20s.
Damn man, take care of yourself. I'm damn near 70 and I take zero drugs. Other than THC of course. Take up powerlifting, quit eating dead animals, don't drink and masturbate a lot.
A lifetime of self-abuse is generally counterproductive except in the rare cases where it isn't.
nope
Vance is a politician. He supports…x. Sometimes x is what we want, sometimes, it isn't He's not a philosopher. Let's just keep that in mind.
Vance is a groomer candidate much like Vivek from the halls of Yale. Same shite, diffrent asshole.
Trump campaign has been raking in the cash from the usual list of defense companies. Biden has as well (until they abandoned him recently). Who is going to go against them or push back the most once in office?
None. The donor class, ie: AIPAC, big banking, MIC, corporate "people".
It is more an expectation than a trope, at this point, to observe that incoming political leaders typically try to reverse or do the opposite of what the previous leader held as policy (tarnishing legacies, proving "change", all that).
So then, The Donald either follows through and stops doing what Biden did, or he continues policy and adds to his lengthy record of openly lying as suits his needs.
Much of the violent, deranged hatred aimed at President Trump over the past 9 years can be directly attributed to Trump's America First Anti-War policies.
True — for any person or topic a LOT of violent, deranged hatred can be plausibly attributed to fantasies and fairy tales.
For me it started when he was a candidate and he condoned torture and even talked about going after "terrorists" family members. It kept going when he used the Navy Seal's widow as a prop. Then on to his visit to Saudi Arabia and the orb rubbing, sword dancing Iran bashing clown show that turned out to be. His artillery barrage in Syria. His missile attacks in Syria. His surge in Afghanistan and his lessening of the rules of engagement that would allow killing to be not quite so difficult. How far are we along? Are we up to him dropping out of the JCPOA? Assassinating the Iranian general? The Abraham accords? The Space Force? The sanctions?
Demanding that his AG arrest his presidential election opponent? And his previous presidential election opponent? As well as his predecessor as president?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/07/trump-demands-barr-arrest-foes-427389
Calling for the police to intentionally hurt suspects?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-police-nice-suspects/story?id=48914504
So much to choose from!
All in on peaceful protesters getting their heads bashed in by militarized police.
We had no debacle in Afghanistan, no invasion of Ukraine, no genocide in Gaza, no new Wars of any kind during 4 years of Trump. And cheap gas to boot.
We were still at war in Afghanistan (Trump signed the instrument of surrender in March, 2020, then did not have a withdrawal plan, which was dumped in Biden's lap). Occupation, along with raids, children being killed by the IDF was still a thing. Mr. Trump sent Ukraine Javelin anti-tank missiles prior to the incursion by Russia. Mr. Trump withdrew from the INF treaty with Russia. Ditched Open Skies with Russia. Mr. Trump authorized more drone strikes than Obama.
I gave you things he did. You gave me things you can only assume he would or wouldn't have done. No one has a clue how the Afghanistan withdrawal would have played out had Trump been in office. To say there wouldn't have been chaos is just an assumption. He supplied lethal weapons to Ukraine that Obama wouldn't and bragged about it claiming Obama/Biden sent them blankets. Trump isn't completely blameless regarding Ukraine. He has bitched about Biden not doing enough as far as the genocide in Gaza is concerned. The only way that would have turned out different is if you believe Trump's repeated nonsense that the Hamas attack wouldn't have happened under his watch. And no new wars would be more impressive if he didn't vigorously partake in the wars he inherited and hadn't continued US belligerence around the globe. No ending of the drone program or the vicious sanctions. To the contrary, the Don made killing easier and sanctioned anyone who looked cross-eyed at us.
I don't understand how you were conned by Trump. Your comments sound coherent and I generally agree with them. I understand the lesser of two evils thing, but you actually think one of the evils is the answer.
Do you seriously want 4 more years of what we’ve got now? We don’t even know who is actually making policy decisions in this White House. At least with President Trump we know who will be making the decisions.
No, I don't. And I don't want 4 more years of Trump. And if Trump was making his own decisions during his first term, his making his own decisions isn't something you would want to hang your hat on.
"At least with President Trump we know who will be making the decisions."
Yes, we do — whoever talked to him most recently.
Dropping out of the INF treaty with Russia. Ditching Open Skies (in place since the Eisenhower administration).
"Trump's America First Anti-War policies"
Lol…! America First policies Cannot Survive Without Unprovoked or proxy Wars…!
As usual, the Russians have a more realistic appraisal than the idiot Americans, especially those people drugged on "hopium" who think that some sort of "peace deal" will allow Ukraine to exist as a state afterward.
"That ain't gonna happen."
Ending the war? Why? We just got started.
We are bleeding Ukraine, NATO, and West and we are gaining dozen of square miles a day.
We are not stopping. We are getting every piece of historical land back
Ukraine and West will wish they were dead when we are done with our SMO or war.
Remember to be on the right side of history when the music stops.
Vance will not be president. His selection sent a message about Russia; not China. Trump's complaint about China is economic; not military/security. Trump has all but said we cannot defend Taiwan because they are 9500 miles away. He even complained they had taken our chip-building industry. He will not sacrifice US for Taiwan.
Making it costly to take Taiwan might not be so bad. The US just needs to not be pulled in. Taiwan is part of China though. It is an internal affair.
"He will not sacrifice US for Taiwan."
But would he sacrifice Tawain for the US?
Vance is really good on domestic issues. He’s likely principled, and he’s smarter than Trump.
Vance has some limited praise for Biden. He’s not overly partisan, and he’s not some corrupt “pro-business” oligarch servant. He’s an overlap of the “far right and far left” or, in other words, principled.
I’ll probably vote Trump this time. I’m curious why Thiel is angry at Trump.
Didn’t he out him?
Haha, if I ever knew I’ve forgotten. I’ll look up later what happened.
It’s neat how America’s system seems to work somewhat in the sense that these individual players do have impact. It’s not all the alphabet orgs.
So, we really might have part of a system to defend somewhat.
“Americans” are TV fed,
Movie educated, and
Internet anesthetized, lobotomized and catatonized!*
dennis hanna
*Offer of evidence:
Movies:
Terms And Conditions May Apply. (Fakebook, i.e., Facebook does the same and worse)
A Good American.
(The United States Government does worse to not only U.S. citizens, but to all human beings who use modern telecommunications)
Books:
Inside the Company: CIA Diary, Philip Agee (low tech)
Permanent Record, Edward Snowden (high tech)
Internet (telecommunications)
1
USA Patriot Act:
The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the Patriot Act) is an Act of the United States Congress ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress) that was signed into law by U.S. President ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) George W. Bush ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) on October 26, 2001. USA PATRIOT is an acronym that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
2
N.D.A.A. :
National Defense Authorization Act (esp. section 1021)
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is the name for each of a series of United States federal laws ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_law) specifying the annual budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Defense) . The first NDAA was passed in 1961. The U.S. Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the National Defense Authorization Act and defense appropriations ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_bill) bills. The authorization bill ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_bill) determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent.
In recent years each NDAA also includes provisions only peripherally related to the Defense Department, because unlike most other bills, the NDAA is sure to be considered and passed so legislators attach ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logrolling) other bills to it.
3
C.I.S.P.A. :
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act
The legislation was introduced on November 30, 2011, by Representative Michael Rogers ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rogers_(Michigan_politician)) (R ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States))-MI ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Representatives_from_Michigan)) and 111 co-sponsors. It was passed in the House of Representatives on April 26, 2012, but was not passed by the U.S. Senate ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate) . President Barack Obama ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)'s advisers have argued that the bill lacks confidentiality and civil liberties safeguards, and the White House said
he would
veto ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto)
it.
In February 2013, the House reintroduced the bill[6] and it passed in the
United States House of Representatives ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives)
on April 18, 2013,but stalled and was not voted upon by the
Senate ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate)
. On July 10, 2014 a similar bill, the
Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_Information_Sharing_Act)
(CISA), was introduced in the Senate.
In January 2015, the House reintroduced the bill again. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Intelligence, and as of February 2, 2015 to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations and Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice to see if it will come to the House for a vote. In December 2015 a version of CISPA was hidden in the total federal budget.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
Elective Affinities
by Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
If your still with me, question:
How do you know a politician is lying?
answer:
His lips are moving. (No!, not that he is talking, merely moving his lips!
Why am I wrong?
"How do you know a politician is lying?"
He/She must be the graduate of DC lie School…!
The US foreign policy is always Unrealistic…!
Vance needs geography lessons like 90% of US public…! Russia is also in Asia Pacific…!
US would go out-of-focus since Russia would come to the help of China…!
On the rare occasions when CNN still sees fit to mention the Ukraine war, their "analysts" /warmongers think it's cute that Ukraine might be ready to talk peace with Russia, but of course they say it's non negotiable that Ukraine will join NATO. So if the wonks have their way there's nothing to talk about. You just can't prove that Biden or Ukraine will lose, so everyone gets to keep losing indefinitely.
Oh bruddah, get out of Ukraine to get more deeply into Taiwan. At least in Europe we've got some local allies (poodles?) who can front for us. Who's our front in Asia? Japan? (Um, JD, Japan has a little bit of history in China, going back to the last century, which sorta disqualifies it from getting involved in Taiwan, doesn't it?)
I mean, I'm not endorsing U.S. involvement in either Ukraine or Taiwan, but political-strategic common sense would suggest to me that Taiwan would be an even bigger danger for us than Ukraine. Direct U.S. boots-on-the-ground? Or at least lots of U.S. naval vessels, including aircraft carriers, floating all over East Asia waters.